War From the Ground Up

Twenty-First-Century Combat as Politics

🎙️ Comps Prep (Oral Comprehensive Exam)

• If a conflict’s outcomes are judged by multiple audiences beyond the enemy, then “winning battles” will not yield political success, because actions are interpreted through unstable local and transnational lenses. So what for strategy: design operations for audience effects, not just enemy effects. (p. 3–4) 

• If contemporary conflict is “mosaic” and tactical actions carry political weight, then strategy must be continuous dialogue between policy intent and ground possibility, because junior actions can cumulatively alter policy and audience alignment. So what for strategy: extend strategic dialogue down the chain, not just among “strategic authorities.” (p. 91–92; p. 116) 

• If policymakers “upscale” an operational approach into strategy (e.g., treating COIN as strategy), then the campaign will drift into self-referential metrics, because operational methods require political context and narrative to have utility. So what for strategy: keep political context primary; treat COIN as operational method, nested in strategic narrative. (p. 131; p. 228) 

• This book complicates Clausewitz-as-slogan by showing how globalisation expands the “strategic domain” to the tactical level and forces persuasion/narrative work alongside coercion; it aligns with Kalyvas’s emphasis on local political logic by insisting “all politics is local” in mosaic war. (p. 112; p. 97) 

Online Description

Simpson argues that twenty-first-century combat often functions less as a bounded “war” with a decisive battlefield verdict and more as politically charged action aimed at persuading multiple audiences. He examines how the traditional war paradigm can be misapplied in fragmented conflicts like Afghanistan, then offers three paired “solutions” for liberal powers: strategic dialogue, pragmatic operational approaches, and strategic narrative. 

Author Background

• British Army officer associated with the Royal Gurkha Rifles; wrote from consolidated operational experience enabled by a Defence Fellowship. 

• Affiliated with Oxford’s Changing Character of War Programme; supported by Balliol College; indebted to Hew Strachan’s guidance. 

• The narrative voice reflects first-hand platoon-level experience with Gurkha soldiers in Afghanistan. (e.g., Baluchi Valley operations and platoon command vignettes) (p. 18–22) 

---

60‑Second Brief

• Core claim (1–2 sentences):

  Contemporary conflict often collapses the separation between “war” and “politics”: force is used for direct political effect across multiple audiences, so classical war-based strategy frequently fails unless it also manages interpretation and persuasion. (p. 3–4; p. 75) 

• Causal logic in a phrase:

  Globalisation → proliferating audiences + fragmented alignments → unstable interpretation → tactical actions become political choices → strategy must be dialogue + narrative.

• Why it matters for IW / strategic competition (2–4 bullets):

  • “Victory” becomes diluted into “success” when audiences beyond the enemy determine legitimacy and endurance. (p. 75) 

  • Liberal civil-military arrangements can block the feedback loops needed for strategy to stay coherent in politicised tactical environments. (p. 92–93; p. 116) 

  • COIN (or any operational method) cannot substitute for political choice; absent a political context, operational concepts drift upward and distort the campaign. (p. 228) 

  • Strategic narrative is the membrane that links operations to political context, and in many conflicts it must function as persuasion/rhetoric across diverse audiences. (p. 179; p. 92) 

• Best single takeaway (1 sentence):

  Treat every operation as political communication to multiple audiences, and build strategy as dialogue-plus-narrative rather than “policy → execution.” (p. 23; p. 120) 

Course Lens

• How does this text define/illuminate irregular warfare?

  • IW shows up here as conflict where outcomes hinge on audiences beyond the enemy and where tactical actions routinely have political meaning—making “war” as a decisive mechanism unreliable. (p. 3–4; p. 67–68) 

  • The “mosaic” character of conflict means actors and alignments are fragmented, fluid, and often non-unitary—closer to domestic politics than interstate war. (p. 97) 

• What does it imply about power/control, success metrics, and timeline in IW?

  • Success metrics shift from battlefield-relative victory to politically mediated “success” across constituencies and audiences. (p. 75) 

  • Control is less about defeating a single enemy and more about maintaining persuasive legitimacy and coherence across many audiences who may be beyond coercive reach. (p. 229) 

  • Timelines tend toward persistent management (“generational war” risk), demanding continuous adjustment of policy and narrative rather than one decisive campaign plan. (p. 15) 

• How does it connect to strategic competition?

  • Competitors exploit audience effects, narrative legitimacy, and politicised tactical actions; the contest is over interpretation and alignment as much as attrition. (p. 75; p. 179) 

  • Coalition credibility (e.g., NATO) and wider external audiences become success conditions even when they are not “parties” to the conflict. (p. 3–4) 

---

Seminar Questions (from syllabus)

• What do you make of Simpson’s arguments?

• Does this fill a gap Clausewitz failed to address?

• Is IW simply armed politics?

• How should strategists think about messaging in IW/warfare?

• How do Simpson’s ideas affect understanding of Algeria?

✅ Direct Responses to Seminar Questions

• Q: What do you make of Simpson’s arguments?

  • A:

    • The book’s core move is to treat “war” as an interpretive structure that gives meaning to violence; strategy must orchestrate force and the interpretive frame that links actions to policy. (p. 29–30) 

    • He argues the “war” paradigm is often misapplied to contemporary conflicts where polarity and audience alignment are compromised; outcomes are defined against audiences beyond the enemy. (p. 3–4; p. 67–68) 

    • The practical prescription is threefold for liberal powers: (1) strategic dialogue that adjusts desire/possibility; (2) pragmatic operational approaches; (3) strategic narrative as the membrane linking operations to political context. (p. 91; p. 15) 

    • His most SAASS-relevant warning: operational concepts (especially COIN) can become “strategy substitutes” when political context is missing, yielding distorted, self-referential metrics. (p. 228; p. 131) 

    • Overall: a strong theory of why tactical excellence and “campaign plans” can fail politically—because interpretation and persuasion are the decisive battleground for many audiences. (p. 23; p. 179) 

• Q: Does this fill a gap Clausewitz failed to address?

  • A:

    • Simpson reads Clausewitz as fully political, including the need for policy to influence war; he highlights Clausewitz’s concern with civil-military interaction at senior levels. (p. 112) 

    • The “gap” Simpson targets is less a Clausewitz omission than a contemporary shift: the strategic domain expands downwards when tactical acts have policy implications, demanding strategic dialogue at lower echelons. (p. 116) 

    • Clausewitz’s paradigm assumes bounded polarity and audiences largely within the sides; globalisation and the information revolution erode those prerequisites, making the classic war mechanism less reliable. (p. 67–68; p. 75) 

    • So: Simpson extends Clausewitz for “mosaic” conflict by operationalising how persuasion/narrative and politicised tactics change what strategy must do in practice. (p. 97; p. 179) 

• Q: Is IW simply armed politics?

  • A:

    • Simpson explicitly pushes toward that conclusion for many contemporary conflicts: “war” can become “a direct extension of political activity” aimed at convincing audiences of a narrative. (p. 75) 

    • He distinguishes this from Clausewitzian war functioning as a mechanism to deliver a decision under polarity/audience alignment; when those prerequisites fail, the “war” frame stops working cleanly. (p. 67–68) 

    • IW is therefore not merely politics-with-guns; it is politics where force is still present but often must work through interpretation, legitimacy, and persuasion rather than decisive battlefield outcomes. (p. 229) 

    • He also retains the possibility that “absolute war” (or high-polarity war) remains conceptually real—even if rare—so “armed politics” is not a universal substitution. (p. 37) 

• Q: How should strategists think about messaging in IW/warfare?

  • A:

    • Messaging is not an overlay; actions communicate (“cannot not communicate”), so operations must be designed as persuasive signals as well as coercive acts. (p. 23) 

    • The key construct is strategic narrative: “the explanation of actions,” connecting operational activity to political context across diverse audiences. (p. 179) 

    • Because many relevant audiences are beyond coercive reach, legitimacy must be gained through persuasion (rhetoric), including ethos/credibility and emotional/moral resonance. (p. 204; p. 229) 

    • Strategists should treat narrative as dynamic: it must adjust to local circumstances through feedback (“strategic dialogue”), not be fixed at headquarters and broadcast downward. (p. 120–121) 

• Q: How do Simpson’s ideas affect understanding of Algeria?

  • A:

    • The book does not treat Algeria directly (TBD for any Algeria-specific textual hooks).

    • Applying Simpson’s framework (inference): Algeria’s violence would be evaluated through how tactical acts shaped legitimacy and audience interpretation (metropole, international audiences, local constituencies), not only through battlefield metrics.

    • Strategic dialogue would be central (inference): civil-military arrangements in a liberal polity could inhibit adjustment of policy aims as the conflict’s political meaning evolved. (p. 128) 

    • Strategic narrative (inference) becomes decisive: “explanation of actions” and credibility/ethos would structure whether coercive methods translated into political outcomes. (p. 179; p. 204) 

---

Chapter-by-Chapter Breakdown

Chapter 0: Introduction (pp. 1–14) 

• One-sentence thesis: Contemporary conflict often breaks the traditional “war” mechanism because outcomes are defined against fragmented actors and audiences beyond the enemy. 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Afghanistan is presented as politically fragmented: actors frequently pursue their own interests rather than “side” interests. (p. 3) 

  • “War” as traditionally conceived assumes polarity and a see-saw victory/defeat outcome relative to an enemy. (p. 3–4) 

  • Many contemporary outcomes are defined against audiences beyond the enemy (population, regional/international audiences, alliance credibility). (p. 3–4) 

  • Military pressure can assist but does not automatically translate into “victory” for coalition audiences. (p. 4) 

  • Strategy must adapt to audiences rather than assume force is universally understood as enemy-focused. (p. 4) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Polarity; audiences beyond the enemy; interpretive frames for success.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Afghanistan framing; drone strikes as military-effective but politically contested. (p. 4) 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Sets the IW problem: legitimacy and interpretation compete with coercion.

  • Previews why “war” metaphors can mislead policy and metrics.

• Links to seminar questions: (which questions this chapter most helps answer)

  • Armed politics?; messaging; “Simpson’s arguments.”

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • (None)

Chapter 1: The Language of War (pp. 15–40) 

• One-sentence thesis: The strategist must master not only the “vernacular of battle” (tactical proficiency) but the “language of war” that makes violence politically meaningful. (p. 15) 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Military activity includes both the use of violence and how it is understood by audiences (especially the enemy). (p. 15) 

  • Battle discourse rationalises events (arrows on maps), but local audiences interpret through personal experience that can matter politically. (p. 22–23) 

  • In Afghanistan, population support makes interpretation of battles politically relevant; locals do not parse operations as staff briefs. (p. 22) 

  • Actions inevitably communicate political meaning; “military-only” success definitions are insufficient. (p. 23) 

  • War is an interpretive hierarchy that gives meaning to violent sequences; meaning is not self-contained and can fragment without a stable interpretive structure. (p. 29–30) 

  • Vietnam anecdote illustrates asymmetric interpretive structures: battlefield claims can be “irrelevant” if the war’s meaning differs. (p. 37) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Vernacular of battle vs language of war; interpretive structure; asymmetric interpretive structures.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Afghanistan battle vignette and local interpretation (Baluchi Valley). (p. 21–23) 

  • Vietnam Summers/Tu exchange. (p. 37) 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Treats tactical events as inputs into political meaning, not just enemy attrition.

  • Establishes why “messaging” is inseparable from deeds.

• Links to seminar questions:

  • Messaging; armed politics; “Simpson’s arguments.”

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • “We ‘cannot not communicate’.” (p. 23) 

  • “The peasants … would not have seen the battle in terms of arrows on maps.” (p. 22) 

Chapter 2: Clausewitzian War and Contemporary Conflict (pp. 41–66) 

• One-sentence thesis: Clausewitz’s paradigm is flexible about war’s evolution, but it can be misunderstood and misapplied when contemporary conflict’s prerequisites differ from interstate war. 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Clausewitz developed On War in response to a transformation in war driven by social forces and Napoleonic scale. (p. 65–66) 

  • Prussia failed in 1806 by thinking in an older mode (“fortresses and a medium-sized province”) while Napoleon pursued state survival and overthrow. (p. 65) 

  • Clausewitz’s analysis treats war’s mechanism as evolvable; “strategic asymmetry” is normal inside the paradigm. (p. 66) 

  • The book sets Clausewitz as baseline for what “war” does (provide military decision under polarity) before showing how contemporary conflict can subvert those conditions. (bridge into ch. 3). (p. 67–68) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Strategic asymmetry; war as mechanism; evolution of war’s form.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars; Prussia at Jena; Valmy/Leipzig scale comparisons. (p. 65–66) 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Warns against treating Clausewitz as a static template; the “Clausewitzian” must be interpreted as a theory of change.

  • Sets up why today’s issue is not just asymmetry but fractured prerequisites (audience/polarity).

• Links to seminar questions:

  • Clausewitz gap; armed politics.

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • (None)

Chapter 3: Globalisation and Contemporary Conflict (pp. 67–90) 

• One-sentence thesis: Globalisation and the information revolution compromise war’s polarity-and-audience assumptions, producing “mosaic” conflicts where success is politically negotiated rather than decisively won. (p. 67–68; p. 75) 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • War’s Clausewitzian function depends on polarity and audiences aligned with sides; when compromised, war’s “mechanism” to produce decision weakens. (p. 67–68) 

  • Contemporary conflicts feature politically kaleidoscopic dynamics that undermine interpretive stability. (p. 68) 

  • Globalisation accelerates proliferation of “audiences beyond the enemy,” diluting “victory” into “success.” (p. 75) 

  • “All politics is local”: tactical actions in mosaic environments must be judged by local political effects and their coherence with broader strategy. (p. 97) 

  • Afghanistan is positioned as indicative of future conflict rather than anomaly. (p. 75) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Beyond-the-enemy audiences; mosaic conflict; success vs victory; kaleidoscopic battlespace.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Afghanistan audience effects and drone strikes; Iraq “mosaic” illustration; broader global audiences and alliance credibility. (p. 3–4; p. 96–97) 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Defines why IW demands persuasion/legitimacy work alongside coercion.

  • Implies assessment horizons look more like political management than campaign termination.

• Links to seminar questions:

  • Armed politics; messaging; “Simpson’s arguments.”

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • “‘War’ is better understood as a direct extension of political activity…” (p. 75) 

Chapter 4: Strategic Dialogue and Political Choice (pp. 91–110) 

• One-sentence thesis: When force becomes a direct extension of policy in contemporary conflict, strategy must be strategic dialogue that forces political choice and coherence down to the tactical level. (p. 91–92) 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Misapplying a traditional Clausewitzian “war” frame can prevent force from connecting to political utility. (p. 91) 

  • Defines strategic dialogue as reciprocal interaction between policy intention and operational articulation (desire vs possibility). (p. 91–92) 

  • Introduces strategic level dual meaning: (1) location of strategic authority; (2) domain where actions have political quality. (p. 93) 

  • Notes liberal powers can block dialogue by treating war as one-way execution and by assuming civilians should “stay out” after giving direction. (p. 92) 

  • Argues policymakers should stay close (vicariously) to the “political pulse” of the ground to maintain coherence. (p. 92) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Strategic dialogue; strategic authority vs strategic domain; political choice at tactical level.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Conceptual discussion; examples of conventional war where strategic dialogue sits high (e.g., Patton) as contrast. (p. 92–93) 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Offers a mechanism for coherence in politicised tactical environments: structured feedback loops.

  • Implies strategy failure is often a governance/process failure, not just operational failure.

• Links to seminar questions:

  • Clausewitz gap; messaging (via coherence); “Simpson’s arguments.”

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • (None)

Chapter 5: Liberal Powers and Strategic Dialogue (pp. 111–130) 

• One-sentence thesis: Liberal civil-military norms and “levels of war” habits can misconfigure strategic dialogue for mosaic conflict, where strategy must be two-way and often reaches the tactical level. (p. 112; p. 120–121) 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Clausewitz wanted political-military reciprocity; he even planned a chapter on “supreme command” but died before writing it. (p. 112) 

  • Critiques Huntington’s partial reading that links war’s instrumentality to robotic obedience; Clausewitz allowed for political influence when policy is “right.” (p. 112) 

  • Argues “strategy is therefore not a one-way road …; strategy should be a dialogue between the two.” (p. 120) 

  • Defines strategic domain as the juncture where actions have political quality; in contemporary conflict that domain expands beyond formal strategic authority. (p. 120–121) 

  • Liberal democracies are constitutionally uncomfortable with tactical-political overlap, yet mosaic conflict makes it routine. (p. 121) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Strategy-as-relationship; levels-of-war critique; expanded strategic domain; civil-military configuration.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Clausewitz/Huntington engagement; conceptual discussion anchored in contemporary conflict realities. (p. 112; p. 116) 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Points to institutional friction as a strategic vulnerability in IW.

  • Suggests “apolitical military” ideals can create chaos by refusing to recognise political effects of tactics.

• Links to seminar questions:

  • Clausewitz gap; messaging (dialogue/narrative); “Simpson’s arguments.”

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • “Strategy … is not a one-way road …; strategy should be a dialogue between the two.” (p. 120) 

  • “If the policy is right … any intentional effect it has on the conduct of war can only be to the good.” (Clausewitz, as quoted) (p. 112) 

Chapter 6: Pragmatism and Operational Thought (pp. 131–156) 

• One-sentence thesis: In mosaic conflict, effective operational approaches require pragmatic mindset and political context; operational concepts cannot substitute for strategy. (p. 131; p. 228) 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Separates strategy from operational approach; argues “counter-insurgency” is an operational term, not a strategy. (p. 131) 

  • Uses Afghan political fragmentation to argue intelligence and political mapping matter more than treating actors as unitary “Taliban vs government.” (p. 79) 

  • Emphasises commanders must ask political questions (where to be, whom to align with), not only enemy-centric ones. (p. 101) 

  • Warns about self-referential metrics when operational frameworks fill a policy vacuum. (p. 228) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Pragmatism; operational approach; self-referencing metrics; political mapping/intelligence.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Afghanistan governance and tribal/criminal dynamics; commander guidance vignette. (p. 79; p. 101) 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Encourages operational design around political effect and adaptability.

  • Rejects doctrinal category substitution for political choice.

• Links to seminar questions:

  • Armed politics; messaging (through action meaning); “Simpson’s arguments.”

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • “Counter-insurgency is a term for an operational approach … It isn’t.” (p. 131) 

  • “Where is the enemy? … Where should we be?” (Lt Gen Lamb, as quoted) (p. 101) 

Chapter 7: British Strategy in the Borneo Confrontation 1962–6 (pp. 157–178) 

• One-sentence thesis: The Borneo Confrontation illustrates how a pragmatic mindset and calibrated operational approach can produce political effect under constrained, ambiguous conditions. 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Introduces Konfrontasi as a complex political contest (not simply a military problem), involving Indonesian strategy, Malaysian formation, and local dynamics. 

  • Shows how British forces operated with restrained, pragmatic methods shaped by political context and escalation concerns. 

  • Uses the case as the extended demonstration for Chapter 6’s “pragmatic mindset” argument. 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Pragmatism in operational art; calibrated escalation; ambiguity management.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Borneo Confrontation 1962–66 as primary case; British/Indonesian/Malaysian interactions. 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Demonstrates “limited” political aims requiring operational finesse rather than decisive battle logic.

  • Suggests historical cases can outperform generic doctrine when political context is explicit.

• Links to seminar questions:

  • “Simpson’s arguments”; messaging (implicit—political signalling through restraint).

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • (None)

Chapter 8: Strategic Narrative (pp. 179–206) 

• One-sentence thesis: Strategic narrative is the explanatory membrane that links operational action to political context, enabling coherence and persuasion across audiences. (p. 179) 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Defines strategic narrative as “the explanation of actions.” (p. 179) 

  • Emphasises narrative’s role in connecting operational approaches (Ch. 6–7) to political context and policy aims. 

  • Insists narrative must remain coherent across local circumstances, requiring strategy to adjust and learn rather than impose a static script. (p. 116–117) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Strategic narrative; membrane between operations and politics; legitimacy.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Conceptual build with links to Afghanistan and broader audience dynamics (as developed earlier). 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Frames messaging as strategy: narrative is how operations become politically legible to non-coerced audiences.

  • Raises MOE risk: measuring “effects” requires measuring interpretation and legitimacy, not just enemy losses.

• Links to seminar questions:

  • Messaging; armed politics; “Simpson’s arguments.”

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • “Strategic narrative is the explanation of actions.” (p. 179) 

Chapter 9: Ethos, Vision and Confidence in Strategic Narrative (pp. 207–226) 

• One-sentence thesis: Strategic narrative functions like rhetoric: persuasion depends on credibility/ethos and emotional-moral resonance, especially for audiences beyond the state and beyond coercion. (p. 204; p. 229) 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Treats rhetoric as the relevant analytic template for narrative-building in contemporary conflict. 

  • Emphasises audiences beyond the state are more likely persuaded by emotional/moral responses than by state “national interest” rationales. (p. 229) 

  • Argues legitimacy among such audiences cannot be coerced; narrative credibility becomes decisive. (p. 204) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Ethos; persuasion; legitimacy among non-state audiences; confidence/credibility.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Conceptual argument anchored in information revolution and audience proliferation (developed across book). (p. 229) 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Provides a disciplined way to think about “messaging”: credibility and resonance are strategic resources.

  • Implies force design must anticipate second-order interpretive effects on external audiences.

• Links to seminar questions:

  • Messaging; armed politics.

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • (None)

Chapter 10: Conclusion — Contemporary Strategic Thought (pp. 227–244) 

• One-sentence thesis: Western strategy often defaults to interstate-war assumptions; in an interconnected world, strategy must integrate government-people-military and operate through narrative and dialogue to achieve political utility. (p. 228–229) 

• What happens / what the author argues (5–10 bullets):

  • Warns that doctrinal fixation and generic categories can distort understanding of real political problems (e.g., Nepal/Afghanistan framing). (p. 228) 

  • Claims COIN becomes wrongly treated as strategy when political context is absent; emphasizes it is “a perfectly sensible operational approach.” (p. 228) 

  • Restates globalisation/information revolution as social forces transforming war again, while Western strategy clings to interstate assumptions (polarity; audiences within sides). (p. 228–229) 

  • Highlights proliferation of audiences beyond enemy/state and their differing persuasion dynamics (coercion limits; moral/emotional assessment). (p. 229) 

  • Flags the risk of sleepwalking into persistent “generational” conflict without a clear end-state. (p. 15) 

  • Frames the end-state: “War moves towards becoming a direct extension of political activity.” (p. 233) 

• Key concepts introduced (0–5):

  • Long war/generational conflict risk; non-state audiences; strategic narrative legitimacy constraints.

• Evidence / cases used:

  • Afghanistan, Nepal civil war outline; audience proliferation logic; presidential rhetoric example as polarity default. (p. 229) 

• IW / strategy relevance (2–4 bullets):

  • Suggests the central strategic task is sustaining legitimate narratives and coherent political choices, not merely defeating enemies.

  • Reframes measurement: “success” is political, multi-audience, and time-extended.

• Links to seminar questions:

  • All five, especially messaging and armed politics.

• Notable quotes (0–2):

  • “War moves towards becoming a direct extension of political activity.” (p. 233) 

---

Theory / Framework Map

• Level(s) of analysis:

  • Primarily strategic-operational linkage (policy ↔ tactics), plus audience/interpretation dynamics across local-to-global.

• Unit(s) of analysis:

  • Liberal states/coalitions as strategic actors; tactical units as politically consequential agents; multiple “audiences” (state and non-state).

• Dependent variable(s):

  • Political utility of force / “success” (as interpreted by relevant audiences) rather than battlefield victory alone. (p. 75) 

• Key independent variable(s):

  • Degree of polarity (clarity of enemy) and alignment of strategic audiences with sides. (p. 67–68) 

  • Proliferation of audiences beyond enemy/state (globalisation/information revolution). (p. 229) 

  • Presence/quality of strategic dialogue (policy–tactics reciprocity). (p. 91–92; p. 120) 

  • Coherence and persuasiveness of strategic narrative. (p. 179; p. 204) 

• Mechanism(s):

  • War (as concept) provides interpretive hierarchy; in fragmented environments, meaning splinters, so strategy must actively manage interpretation and persuasion. (p. 29–30) 

  • Strategic dialogue reduces the “desire–possibility” gap by adjusting policy and action reciprocally. (p. 120) 

  • Strategic narrative binds dispersed tactical political effects into a coherent explanation that can be accepted by diverse audiences. (p. 179) 

• Scope conditions / where it should NOT apply:

  • High-polarity interstate war where audiences largely identify with sides and coercion can deliver a recognised verdict (more “Clausewitzian” conditions). (p. 67–68) 

  • “Absolute war” (rare) where destruction is the dominant universal meaning and interpretive plurality is less central. (p. 37) 

• Observable implications / predictions:

  • In mosaic conflict, tactical excellence without narrative coherence yields political incoherence and strategic drift. (p. 97; p. 116) 

  • If operational approaches are treated as strategy, campaigns will chase self-referential metrics and misread the conflict “on its own terms.” (p. 228) 

  • Where relevant audiences are beyond coercion, persuasion/ethos becomes a key determinant of legitimacy and endurance. (p. 229) 

Key Concepts & Definitions (author’s usage)

• Language of war

  • Definition: The interpretive structure that links the use of force to political meaning (distinct from technical “battle” proficiency). (p. 15) 

  • Role in argument: Explains why tactics alone cannot deliver political outcomes.

  • Analytical note: Operationalize as the framing story that renders actions intelligible to target audiences.

• Interpretive structure (of war)

  • Definition: War provides an interpretive hierarchy giving meaning to sequences of violence; meaning is not self-contained and varies with audience prejudices. (p. 30) 

  • Role in argument: Shows why stable meaning is a strategic requirement.

  • Analytical note: Look for variance in interpretation across local, domestic, and international audiences.

• Polarity

  • Definition: The traditional war assumption of two sides/enemy distinction enabling a see-saw victory/defeat outcome. (p. 3–4) 

  • Role in argument: One prerequisite for war as a decision mechanism.

  • Analytical note: Assess whether “enemy” is unitary and whether sides are stable franchises.

• Audiences beyond the enemy

  • Definition: Relevant audiences against whom outcomes are defined other than the enemy; often beyond reach of force. (p. 229) 

  • Role in argument: Drives the shift from victory to “success” and raises persuasion demands.

  • Analytical note: Identify which audiences matter for legitimacy, coalition cohesion, and adversary narrative.

• Mosaic conflict

  • Definition: Fragmented political environments where actions have local political effects and alignments shift kaleidoscopically. (p. 97) 

  • Role in argument: Explains why tactics become political choices.

  • Analytical note: Track micro-alignment changes, patronage networks, and second-order political effects of operations.

• Strategic dialogue

  • Definition: Reciprocal interaction between policy intention (desire) and operational possibility (execution reality). (p. 91–92) 

  • Role in argument: Mechanism for coherence and political choice.

  • Analytical note: Evaluate whether feedback loops exist and whether policy adjusts during conflict.

• Strategic authority vs strategic domain

  • Definition: Authority is who formally makes strategy; domain is where actions have political quality (often expanded in contemporary conflict). (p. 93; p. 121) 

  • Role in argument: Explains why strategy must reach down to the tactical level.

  • Analytical note: Identify where political choices are being made (intentionally or not).

• Operational approach

  • Definition: A military method/toolset that requires political context to have utility; not equivalent to strategy. (p. 131; p. 228) 

  • Role in argument: Prevents doctrinal substitution for political strategy.

  • Analytical note: Check if operational metrics are being mistaken for political outcomes.

• Strategic narrative

  • Definition: “The explanation of actions.” (p. 179) 

  • Role in argument: The membrane connecting operations to political context.

  • Analytical note: Test coherence between stated narrative and observed deeds across audiences.

• Rhetoric / persuasion (ethos, vision, confidence)

  • Definition: Strategic narrative resembles persuasion; credibility and emotional/moral resonance are central for non-state audiences. (p. 204; p. 229) 

  • Role in argument: Explains why “messaging” is strategic, not cosmetic.

  • Analytical note: Measure trust/credibility indicators and moral-emotional response patterns.

---

Key Arguments & Evidence

• Argument 1: War is a concept that must stabilise meaning; without interpretive coherence, force cannot reliably produce political utility.

  • Evidence/examples:

    • Strategy must “construct the interpretive structure” that links force to policy. (p. 29) 

    • Vietnam anecdote shows battlefield “victory” can be irrelevant if the war’s meaning differs. (p. 37) 

  • So what:

    • In IW, legitimacy and interpretation are not peripheral; they are core determinants of success.

• Argument 2: Globalisation produces mosaic conflicts and proliferating audiences beyond the enemy; “victory” becomes diluted into “success.”

  • Evidence/examples:

    • Globalisation undermines polarity and audience containment; expands beyond-enemy audiences. (p. 75) 

    • “All politics is local”: tactical acts create political realignments that must fit broader strategy. (p. 97) 

  • So what:

    • Strategy must be designed as political management across multiple constituencies, not as enemy-centric campaign sequencing alone.

• Argument 3: Liberal powers need (a) strategic dialogue, (b) pragmatic operational approaches, and (c) strategic narrative; otherwise operational concepts become strategy substitutes and campaigns drift.

  • Evidence/examples:

    • Strategy is dialogue, not one-way policy-to-tactics. (p. 120) 

    • COIN is operational, not strategy; absent political context it distorts comprehension and metrics. (p. 131; p. 228) 

    • Strategic narrative is the “explanation of actions” connecting operations to political context. (p. 179) 

  • So what:

    • Strategic failure in IW is often failure of political choice and narrative coherence, not tactical performance.

⚖️ Assumptions & Critical Tensions

• Assumptions the author needs:

  • That meaning/interpretation is strategically shapeable (at least partially) through coherent action and narrative.

  • That liberal systems can adapt civil-military processes enough to run real strategic dialogue in politicised tactical contexts. (p. 121) 

• Tensions / tradeoffs / contradictions:

  • Liberal democratic accountability and “stay out” norms vs the need for civilian closeness to ground political pulse. (p. 92) 

  • The requirement for local adaptation vs the requirement for unified purpose (top-down vs bottom-up coherence). (p. 117) 

  • Persuasion without coercion for beyond-enemy audiences vs the continued centrality of force for some audiences (risk of narrative divorced from capability).

• What would change the author’s mind? (mark clearly as inference)

  • Inference: strong cases where decisive coercion alone (without credible narrative) consistently produces durable political success across beyond-enemy audiences.

Critique Points

• Strongest critique:

  • The framework is powerful but can be difficult to operationalize empirically: measuring “interpretive stability,” narrative uptake, and audience effects can be methodologically demanding (risk of post hoc narrative explanations).

• Weakest critique:

  • The book is intentionally accessible and non-technical, which may leave some analytic constructs under-specified for hypothesis testing. (p. 15) 

• Method/data critique (if applicable):

  • Heavy reliance on illustrative vignettes and conceptual argument; fewer systematic comparisons across cases beyond Borneo/Afghanistan framing.

• Missing variable / alternative explanation:

  • Material/structural constraints (resources, partner capacity, domestic political polarization at home) might independently drive incoherence even with good narrative and dialogue (inference).

---

Policy & Strategy Takeaways

• Implications for the US + partners:

  • Build strategy as a living feedback system: policy must adjust to ground reality, and ground actions must be designed for political coherence. (p. 120; p. 116) 

  • Treat “audiences beyond the enemy” as explicit centers of gravity for legitimacy—even when they are beyond coercive reach. (p. 229) 

• Practical “do this / avoid that” bullets:

  • Do: explicitly map political constituencies and likely interpretation pathways before and during operations (local + domestic + international).

  • Do: define strategic narrative as an “explanation of actions” that is updated through dialogue, not a static IO plan. (p. 179) 

  • Avoid: treating COIN (or any operational approach) as strategy; demand political context and policy choice first. (p. 131; p. 228) 

  • Avoid: “enemy-only” campaign logic when outcomes are judged by multiple audiences; anticipate backlash effects (e.g., drone strikes example). (p. 4) 

• Risks / second-order effects:

  • Narrative incoherence: tactical actions can negate strategic story, creating compounding legitimacy loss.

  • Process failure: liberal civil-military constraints can freeze policy in “rear-view mirror” accountability dynamics. (p. 128) 

• What to measure (MOE/MOP ideas) and over what timeline:

  • MOE: audience legitimacy indicators (polling where available; qualitative sentiment; elite discourse alignment; partner elite behavior); rates of defection/realignment in local coalitions.

  • MOP: frequency/quality of strategic dialogue (decision cycles; policy adjustments; tactical feedback incorporation).

  • Timeline: expect extended horizons—measure trend stability, not event spikes, in persistent conflicts. (p. 15) 

⚔️ Cross‑Text Synthesis (SAASS 644)

• Where this aligns:

  • With Simpson’s “all politics is local,” Kalyvas-style logic becomes central: tactical actions create local political realignments that aggregate upward. (p. 97) 

  • With Patterson’s IW + strategic competition framing (inference): strategic competition is mediated through narrative legitimacy and audience effects, not only force-on-force outcomes.

• Where this contradicts:

  • Any “decisive battle solves the problem” intuition: even successful kinetic actions can fail politically if interpreted adversely by key audiences. (p. 4; p. 23) 

• What it adds that others miss:

  • A specific conceptual bridge: strategic narrative as the “membrane” tying operational approaches to political context—and an explicit claim that narrative resembles rhetoric/persuasion rather than “messaging products.” (p. 179; p. 15) 

• 2–4 “bridge” insights tying at least TWO other readings together:

  • Simpson + Kalyvas (theme bridge): local political choices at the tactical level are unavoidable; strategy’s task is to make them coherent with policy rather than accidental. (p. 97; p. 92) 

  • Simpson + Mao (theme bridge, inference): protracted conflict requires durable political narrative and legitimacy over time; “success” looks like managed political endurance, not singular victory.

  • Simpson + Galula/Peterson (theme bridge, inference): population interpretation of violence and governance is decisive; Simpson supplies the audience/narrative machinery explaining why.

  • Simpson + Biddle (theme bridge, inference): where nonstate warfare changes the battlefield, Simpson explains why the political meaning of tactical interaction can outweigh the tactical result for strategic success.

---

❓ Open Questions for Seminar

• If “strategic narrative is the explanation of actions,” how do we distinguish narrative coherence from narrative truth—and does it matter for legitimacy over long timelines?

• What institutional design best enables “strategic dialogue” in liberal democracies without collapsing civilian control or politicizing the force in destructive ways?

• When audiences beyond the enemy are decisive but beyond coercion, what is the appropriate role of force: deterrent signal, coercive lever, or narrative “evidence”?

• How do we measure “success” rigorously in mosaic conflicts without defaulting to self-referential operational metrics?

• What would a campaign plan look like if it were built primarily around audience segmentation and interpretive effects rather than enemy course-of-action?

• In what kinds of conflicts does the Clausewitzian “war mechanism” still work cleanly today—and how would we recognize we are in one?

• Does a “pragmatic mindset” risk strategic drift and moral hazard if it prioritizes local effectiveness over political principle?

✍️ Notable Quotes & Thoughts

• “We ‘cannot not communicate’.” (p. 23) 

• “Strategic narrative is the explanation of actions.” (p. 179) 

• “Strategy … is not a one-way road …; strategy should be a dialogue between the two.” (p. 120) 

• “Counter-insurgency is a term for an operational approach … It isn’t.” (p. 131) 

• “War moves towards becoming a direct extension of political activity.” (p. 233) 

• “The peasants … would not have seen the battle in terms of arrows on maps.” (p. 22) 

• “If the policy is right … any intentional effect it has on the conduct of war can only be to the good.” (Clausewitz, as quoted) (p. 112) 

• “Where is the enemy? … Where should we be?” (Lt Gen Lamb, as quoted) (p. 101) 

Exam Drills / Take‑Home Hooks

• Prompt 1: “Why do tactical victories fail to produce strategic success in irregular warfare?”

  • Outline:

    1. Define war as interpretive structure; tactical actions as language. (p. 29–30) 

    2. Explain globalisation/audience proliferation → victory→success dilution. (p. 75; p. 229) 

    3. Prescribe: strategic dialogue + pragmatic operational approach + strategic narrative.

• Prompt 2: “What is strategic narrative, and why is it central to IW?”

  • Outline:

    1. Definition: explanation of actions. (p. 179) 

    2. Why it matters: audiences beyond coercion; persuasion/rhetoric.

    3. How to implement: dialogue-driven adaptation; deed-message integration (“cannot not communicate”). (p. 23) 

• Prompt 3: “Does Simpson ‘fix’ Clausewitz for the 21st century?”

  • Outline:

    1. Clausewitz remains political; Simpson rejects robotic-obedience reading. (p. 112) 

    2. New conditions: compromised polarity + proliferating audiences.

    3. New requirement: expand strategic dialogue and narrative work downward.

• Prompt 4: “Why do liberal democracies struggle strategically in mosaic conflict?”

  • Outline:

    1. Misread strategy as one-way levels model.

    2. Constitutional discomfort with tactical-political overlap.

    3. Outcome: delayed policy adaptation; operational concepts filling vacuum.

• If I had to write a 1500‑word response in 4–5 hours, my thesis would be:

  In contemporary irregular warfare, strategy fails when it treats combat as a bounded “war” rather than as political communication to multiple audiences; success requires strategic dialogue, pragmatic operational design, and persuasive strategic narrative.

  • 3 supporting points:

    1. War as interpretive structure: actions require meaning to have political utility. (p. 29–30) 

    2. Globalisation fractures polarity and proliferates audiences beyond coercion, shifting victory to political “success.” (p. 75; p. 229) 

    3. Liberal powers need dialogue and narrative to keep tactical political choices coherent with policy; COIN cannot substitute for political context. (p. 120; p. 228) 

  • 1 anticipated counterargument:

    • “Hard power still decides”: Response (inference): Simpson does not deny force’s importance; he argues its political utility is mediated by interpretation and audience legitimacy, especially beyond the enemy.